Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SilentPanda, Jan 15, 2013.
But it may be against state law.
The health and life insurance difference may be actuarial, at least in part. I remember reading that married people, as a group, live longer. Sorry, it's anecdotal for now; I have no citations handy.
as a single person, this sucks
As a married person, it sucks that you are discriminated against.
This would be much less of a problem if our government didn't try to buy our support by subsidizing nearly every aspect of our lives. Why we put tax incentives on marriage, home ownership (read: mortgage debt), having children, giving to charity is beyond me.
Hard to argue without citations. I'd be interested to see where the stats came from. A cursory check on Google seems to go back and forth like two 8 year olds in the back seat of the car. How long do you have to be married to be considered married? How long are you divorced or your spouse deceased before you are counted as single again? Why do single people die earlier than married people? Do they take more risks? Are they including people in their 20's/30's who maybe haven't gotten married yet and die from risky activities or suicide but potentially would have gotten married otherwise?
That much is the same all over. Social engineering through taxation.
Perhaps something about ensuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity that makes up and justifies our Constitution?
We are a nation, and while we are living in "generation me", our lives don't always have to be just about "me".
Go tell the guy who is upside down on his mortgage and about to get foreclosed on how we're all appreciative of the sacrifice he made for the general welfare.
I agree that we're living in generation me and how terrible that is. But using taxes to incentivize debt, having kids and getting married is beyond silly. This is especially so when you factor in that we, as a country, can't actually afford it.
I am one of those who is upside down in their mortgage. Even after a loan mod, my house is still $100,000 underwater. But keep in mind that it wasn't the common people who caused the housing bubble to bust. Back again to banks, greed, and "it's all about me".
Everyone who has owned a home going back to the 50s probably has received some sort of incentive, so you really can't blame the people for that.
Again, bubbles, booms, and busts. However.. are you saying that two people who love each other should not start a family, because the country can't afford it? For all intents and purposes, you've just implied that we should follow China's path and restrict birthing of children.
I seriously hope you are not implying that.
I think he is saying there shouldn't need to be tax incentives on the government's part to have kids or to get married
I"m honestly not trying to be rude here....but you're obviously not doing better than skimming what I am writing.
Of course people should start families as they see fit. Of course people should have kids if they so choose. I just don't see why the government should subsidize those efforts. If someone has the money to buy a house, then they should get one. If they need help from the government in order to afford it, then they shouldn't. Pretty simple point being made there.
If that is what he implied for kids, then to an extent I would agree, especially in the case of the Duggers and their 19 kids. We surely can't restrict anyone on how many kids they want to have like we can't restrict what they do with their bodies, but the incentives can be limited; where that limit should be is up for discussion.
As far as marriage goes, we then come back to the issues with gay marriage and DOMA: Get rid of the concept of it and its incentives completely, for EVERYONE, or make it inclusive for everyone. But I don't see those on the Right going along with that.
Then I read way too much into your statement. Yes, they should buy a home if and only if they can afford it, let alone have kids if they can afford it. Should it be their only means of income or feel like they are entitled to it? absolutely not. I still subscribe to the Michael Jackson credo:
Thanks for clarifying.
If you believe people should be responsible before starting a family you must be, a) pro-choice and b) believe in strong sex and relationship education.
Ideally, shouldn't it be that way?
I know I don't plan on having kids until I am in a nice position to do so
But if you're pro-life then you're a hypocrite. No contraceptive has perfect reliability, even when it is used properly.
And expecting people to figure out sex education on their own is naive.
"Kinder kriegen die Leute immer" (engl. "people will always have children") - Konrad Adenauer 1957, when his economy minister voiced his concerns about how the new german pension system would be dependent on consistent birth rates
Birthrate Germany 2010: 1,39 kids per woman ... the highest since _1990_
It's time for (over half of) the electorate to start realising that 'family friendly policy' actually means 'screw you single people'.
As I was reading the article I assumed that the cost of raising a child would balance out the price of being single nicely
Guess it's time to get married.
People shouldn't be bullied into getting married, no matter what sexuality. I'm not gonna anchor my life to anything or anyone (except perhaps my guitars).
I guess you have to pay for the priveliege of freedom.
Hey people there is nothing wrong with marriage, it was so good I tried three times.
Well said on the guitars. They may as well cut off my left arm if they pry my guitars away from me!
Because they are frequently public goods. It benefits you when your neighbor's children are educated and gainfully employed. It benefits you when epidemics don't tear through your town. It benefits you when science and medicine advance. These things benefit you because they benefit everyone without exclusion. So, it makes sense for you to be taxed to pay for them.
The solution is obvious - three-way marriages.
My wife and I are under that and will remain so